RugbyPUBtbilisi wrote:REC is joke tournament... Here are reasons...1) when Pacific teams were destroyed in 2015 RWC and Japan & Georgia get Auto qualification for 2019 RWC, WR just ripped direct qualification spot to Europe and gave it to Pacific team. So that 1st placed team in REC will qualify directly and 2'd team WILL NOT qualify unless it wins repechage tournament.

1) While Georgia did extremely well to automatically qualify for Japan, let's not go re-writing history. The Islanders performed at a level similar to Georgia throughout the tournament so saying they were destroyed comes off wrong to me. Fiji had respectable performances against three of the toughest teams on the planet. Tonga did lose to y'all in the group stage, by a try, but put in decent performances having similar scorelines against Argentina and New Zealand while performing better against Namibia. I'll admit Samoa did have a rough go against Japan and South Africa but they beat the Americans and ran Scotland close.

Now that's not to say I'm defending World Rugby for the 2019 Qualifier choices and their self-imposed pressures of having all three compete in the World Cup. I'm not a fan of practically guaranteeing all three a spot in Japan and do think it's extremely unfair to Europe2 to be forced into this position.

2) Georgia's participation as absolute dominant team in REC become false. Every team in REC was aiming to pass Georgia without key players because they did not stand a chance against them. Now, every match involving Georgia is out of ranking and out of tournament and Georgia's result will not give or take anything from this teams. So Lelos are like Guests in this tournament from now on. Even if Georgia loose to anyone with 4 or more tries (this is NOT going to happen) opposite team will not gain ANY points.

2) I do find the attitudes of some Georgian posters towards their fellow ENC teams kinda funny. While I agree they have outgrown the competition in ENC1A, the "we're better than you so why should we play you" attitude is similar to 6N folks I know who wonder why they should care about smaller and/or weaker countries like Georgia, Romania and even Italy. Granted Georgia hasn't had a real chance to showcase themselves but people do use Georgia's performances against Ireland and against secondary/tertiary sides in the Tbilisi Cup in recent years against them. If they even know Georgia exists at all. Whether that's fair or not is another story. I don't think so but I learned long ago life isn't really fair, especially in sports. Hopefully they have a strong showing against Scotland and can get more T1 tests in the future.

I personally had similar attitudes toward the new Americas Rugby Championship last year but it is what it is and I'm coming around. It is a good opportunity for our domestic guys to showcase themselves and get some good games under their belts. I don't see the shame in Georgia fielding a domestic/young Georgia to showcase and develop new guys while also providing strong opposition for weaker countries.

3) Even before 2015 RWC there was talks that Lelos should find stronger tournament. But now it is totally funny tournament, without any potential for Future.This tournament is going to be Used as testing place for youngster, testing place for coaching stuff. As preparing matches for serious tests in Summer window.

Ladies and gentlemen this kind of jokes happen ONLY in World Rugby. Comedy will continue at least in near future.

3) No idea what type of stronger tournament Georgia could have got involved in outside of ENC1A. Sure there's some push from people for 6 Nations inclusion but that's unlikely and years down the road, if at all. Just like the Pacific Islands, Georgia are also too small and poor for SANZAAR to include unless your billionaire sugar daddy throws crazy insane amounts of money at them. They could have tried something with the T2s but the North Americans and Asia-Pacific have been and look to continue to be busy among themselves for the foreseeable future.

Buffalo wrote:2) I do find the attitudes of some Georgian posters towards their fellow ENC teams kinda funny. While I agree they have outgrown the competition in ENC1A, the "we're better than you so why should we play you" attitude is similar to 6N folks I know who wonder why they should care about smaller and/or weaker countries like Georgia, Romania and even Italy. Granted Georgia hasn't had a real chance to showcase themselves but people do use Georgia's performances against Ireland and against secondary/tertiary sides in the Tbilisi Cup in recent years against them. If they even know Georgia exists at all. Whether that's fair or not is another story. I don't think so but I learned long ago life isn't really fair, especially in sports. Hopefully they have a strong showing against Scotland and can get more T1 tests in the future.

I personally had similar attitudes toward the new Americas Rugby Championship last year but it is what it is and I'm coming around. It is a good opportunity for our domestic guys to showcase themselves and get some good games under their belts. I don't see the shame in Georgia fielding a domestic/young Georgia to showcase and develop new guys while also providing strong opposition for weaker countries.

You know what is a difference between football and Rugby as a sport? Football is far more advanced and it doesnt have any T1, T2 groups. It is acceptable for Germany to play against Faroe Islands and they do not argue about it. I am not saying not to play vs Belgium or Russia, i say following: "As country reaches dominance in REC starting from division 2B and advancing to 1A in 20 years, and dominating the tournament with annual Grand Slams, has to have a chance to compete in higher tournament". Today it is Georgia, tomorrow it will be Germany ( I believe) and this will push Rugby as a sport forward spreading worldwide.

But there is a fact! Georgia is far better than any other REC team in the tournament and today Lelos results doesnt have ANY sense in the tournament. Tell me the reason to play in tournament when team's result is not included, when everybody else is rising white flag before the match.

For future there are few choices:1) Entering in Pacific nations cup or creating new T2 tournament including Samoa, Fiji, Tonga, Georgia, Japan, USA, Canada.2) Entering in 7 Nations championship (this is NOT going to happen due to conservative Europeans)3) Creating Super Rugby Franchisee. This is best way to progress Further and not to become another regressing "Romania" (who's future could be different if 5 nations include them in 90th together with Italy)

And letting Georgia A to play in REC is logical.

And about Tbilisi Cup. Do you know the story? Georgia demanded to change status to Georgia A in this tournament but it was declined. Fact is Georgia fielded Emerging team in Tbilisi cup and it was officially counted as national Team. SO please stop arguing about "Italy A defeated Georgia"... This is not serious... T2 teams must have T1 tests annually. And who is stronger must be discussed on the field not in WR office in Dublin.

3) No idea what type of stronger tournament Georgia could have got involved in outside of ENC1A. Sure there's some push from people for 6 Nations inclusion but that's unlikely and years down the road, if at all. Just like the Pacific Islands, Georgia are also too small and poor for SANZAAR to include unless your billionaire sugar daddy throws crazy insane amounts of money at them. They could have tried something with the T2s but the North Americans and Asia-Pacific have been and look to continue to be busy among themselves for the foreseeable future.

On point 1, Georgia performed well but where is the evidence that the rest of Europe deserves another spot? Russia, 3rd place in the last ENC, toured North America over the summer and hardly challenged either team, losing both matches by 25. These are teams that did not win a single match at the 2015 RWC.

On point 2, how is that the fault of World Rugby? Also, pretty sure the matches will count for rankings, although Georgia may not have much to gain due to some of the teams being quite a bit lower in the rankings.

You know what is a difference between football and Rugby as a sport? Football is far more advanced and it doesnt have any T1, T2 groups. It is acceptable for Germany to play against Faroe Islands and they do not argue about it. I am not saying not to play vs Belgium or Russia, i say following: "As country reaches dominance in REC starting from division 2B and advancing to 1A in 20 years, and dominating the tournament with annual Grand Slams, has to have a chance to compete in higher tournament". Today it is Georgia, tomorrow it will be Germany ( I believe) and this will push Rugby as a sport forward spreading worldwide.

But there is a fact! Georgia is far better than any other REC team in the tournament and today Lelos results doesnt have ANY sense in the tournament. Tell me the reason to play in tournament when team's result is not included, when everybody else is rising white flag before the match.

For future there are few choices:1) Entering in Pacific nations cup or creating new T2 tournament including Samoa, Fiji, Tonga, Georgia, Japan, USA, Canada.2) Entering in 7 Nations championship (this is NOT going to happen due to conservative Europeans)3) Creating Super Rugby Franchisee. This is best way to progress Further and not to become another regressing "Romania" (who's future could be different if 5 nations include them in 90th together with Italy)

And letting Georgia A to play in REC is logical.

And about Tbilisi Cup. Do you know the story? Georgia demanded to change status to Georgia A in this tournament but it was declined. Fact is Georgia fielded Emerging team in Tbilisi cup and it was officially counted as national Team. SO please stop arguing about "Italy A defeated Georgia"... This is not serious... T2 teams must have T1 tests annually. And who is stronger must be discussed on the field not in WR office in Dublin.

3) No idea what type of stronger tournament Georgia could have got involved in outside of ENC1A. Sure there's some push from people for 6 Nations inclusion but that's unlikely and years down the road, if at all. Just like the Pacific Islands, Georgia are also too small and poor for SANZAAR to include unless your billionaire sugar daddy throws crazy insane amounts of money at them. They could have tried something with the T2s but the North Americans and Asia-Pacific have been and look to continue to be busy among themselves for the foreseeable future.

[/quote]

Other options:4) get a proper European championship going every four years5) play the southern teams when they come to Europe at the end of the year. Even if it is just against a 2nd team as a midweek fixture.

Would there be any point in entering a Georgian team in any of the British or French competitions? Are the logistics too difficult?

Coloradoan wrote:On point 1, Georgia performed well but where is the evidence that the rest of Europe deserves another spot? Russia, 3rd place in the last ENC, toured North America over the summer and hardly challenged either team, losing both matches by 25. These are teams that did not win a single match at the 2015 RWC.

On point 2, how is that the fault of World Rugby? Also, pretty sure the matches will count for rankings, although Georgia may not have much to gain due to some of the teams being quite a bit lower in the rankings.

Evidence is, that every European team possible did qualify automatically for the next World Cup. Romania didn't, but just because they were behind 3 other European teams. Your example doesn't really matter, as the USA as well as Canada will already have an easy route to qualify and they were part of the World Cup 2015 (which goes hand in hand with massive WR funding btw). It will always be extremely tough for a nation outside of the world cup to beat a nation who was part of the RWC and received the funding.

As it stands the participation at the RWC is the biggest chance to grow rugby, but it is nearly a closed shop with one big bouncer standing outside to qualify for it. Uruguay was lucky to win on aggregate with 8 points against Russia in 2014 and they seem to have used the funding money quite well. So the bouncer outside of the RWC door has just grown even more. While the regulars all get a free pass-through, no matter if they behaved well enough the last time around.

I do understand, that the USA and Canada are really important markets and the easy route is necessary, but if it would just go sportswise, you guys would be the first to lose a place (or play-off with Uruguay or even Europe 2 for the second spot).

About point2: if you have automatic qualifiers you create more or less meaningless tournaments. So it is 100% WR's fault. Why not let the 6 nations have their go to qualify. Those one-off-matches will create publicity in tier2/3 nations.If Germany can play San Marino, Gibraltar or the Faroer Islands in soccer, there is no reason why England can't play Germany in rugby.

How to grow rugby worldwide?Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

Nice to see the dates of the development pool and of the play-offJust a bit disappointing instead to see the same old venues for the minor tournaments: Moscow, Gdansk, Exeter, Lyon, Esztergom, Vichy, Bretagne, Malemort, Kazan… Heidelberg seems a new entry

Coloradoan wrote:On point 1, Georgia performed well but where is the evidence that the rest of Europe deserves another spot? Russia, 3rd place in the last ENC, toured North America over the summer and hardly challenged either team, losing both matches by 25. These are teams that did not win a single match at the 2015 RWC.

On point 2, how is that the fault of World Rugby? Also, pretty sure the matches will count for rankings, although Georgia may not have much to gain due to some of the teams being quite a bit lower in the rankings.

Evidence is, that every European team possible did qualify automatically for the next World Cup. Romania didn't, but just because they were behind 3 other European teams. Your example doesn't really matter, as the USA as well as Canada will already have an easy route to qualify and they were part of the World Cup 2015 (which goes hand in hand with massive WR funding btw). It will always be extremely tough for a nation outside of the world cup to beat a nation who was part of the RWC and received the funding.

As it stands the participation at the RWC is the biggest chance to grow rugby, but it is nearly a closed shop with one big bouncer standing outside to qualify for it. Uruguay was lucky to win on aggregate with 8 points against Russia in 2014 and they seem to have used the funding money quite well. So the bouncer outside of the RWC door has just grown even more. While the regulars all get a free pass-through, no matter if they behaved well enough the last time around.

I do understand, that the USA and Canada are really important markets and the easy route is necessary, but if it would just go sportswise, you guys would be the first to lose a place (or play-off with Uruguay or even Europe 2 for the second spot).

USA and Canada are head and shoulders above the 3rd place ENC team and it's not close. Sporting-wise they would not lose a spot to Spain or Russia. That's complete nonsense.

Regarding as many European teams finishing top 3 as possible, that's simply a quirk of the scheduling. Romania wouldn't have finished in the top 3 in any other group and frankly had the easiest path to do so by being in its own group. But that is beside the point, which is that the results of one nation don't mean that others in the region are automatically better. If the non-Georgia, non-Romania ENC teams start doing well in intercontinental competition, by all means grant Europe extra spots. But until then, they still have a path to qualify for the RWC and that's all they deserve. By the same token, if USA or Canada finished in the top 3 of their group in 2019, does that mean North America should get extra spots in the 2023 RWC? That would be asinine to see Mexico at the RWC simply because USA or Canada improved.

Lastly, about the extra funding and difficulty in qualifying if you weren't at the previous RWC, we've never had the same 20 teams at two RWCs in a row so it doesn't seem to be a big hurdle to qualifying.

About point2: if you have automatic qualifiers you create more or less meaningless tournaments. So it is 100% WR's fault. Why not let the 6 nations have their go to qualify. Those one-off-matches will create publicity in tier2/3 nations.If Germany can play San Marino, Gibraltar or the Faroer Islands in soccer, there is no reason why England can't play Germany in rugby.

The difference between soccer and rugby in that regard is two-fold: soccer can have more fixtures because it is less taxing on the body. Soccer also has a lot more money. If World Rugby had to go fund those matches, that's money out of the budget elsewhere. I'm not saying you're wrong here, but there is a justification for why they do this.

Canalina wrote:Just a bit disappointing instead to see the same old venues for the minor tournaments: Moscow, Gdansk, Exeter, Lyon, Esztergom, Vichy, Bretagne, Malemort, Kazan… Heidelberg seems a new entry

it will be the same in 2018 as wellcontracts for hosting 7s (W)GPS were signed before 2015 for 2+2 years

Coloradoan wrote:By the same token, if USA or Canada finished in the top 3 of their group in 2019, does that mean North America should get extra spots in the 2023 RWC? That would be asinine to see Mexico at the RWC simply because USA or Canada improved.

Actually yes: the Americas should get an additional place if they achieved this. The qualification structure between SA and NA is already linked and they share the ARC.

Coloradoan wrote:Lastly, about the extra funding and difficulty in qualifying if you weren't at the previous RWC, we've never had the same 20 teams at two RWCs in a row so it doesn't seem to be a big hurdle to qualifying.

Hence why I wrote, that Uruguay was very lucky to win on aggregate by 8 points against Russia. I even remember reading Russians complaining that their union did not use the money wise enough (maybe some Russian could clearify, what the true reason of not qualifying was). The qualification modus goes all down to just one single team to change (maybe 2, if Namibia falls to Zimbabwe or Kenya one day). And this will always be the last repechage spot.

Coloradoan wrote:The difference between soccer and rugby in that regard is two-fold: soccer can have more fixtures because it is less taxing on the body. Soccer also has a lot more money. If World Rugby had to go fund those matches, that's money out of the budget elsewhere. I'm not saying you're wrong here, but there is a justification for why they do this.

That is the point: they don't really need to fund those matches, as every 6 nation team will draw a 10k+ attendance in every playoff-game away (very conservative as the average attendance in the ENC without Georgia was already 5k last year).Let the first 2 of the 6 nations qualify and the last 4 play the best 4 teams from the ENC. The 4 loser can then playoff for the remaining 2 or 3 places. Likewise one additional game for the 6 nations teams.

How to grow rugby worldwide?Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

The game between Turkey and Austria was cancelled by Rugby Europe due to "a lack of communication by the Turkish rugby federation". It is yet to be clearified if the game is moved to spring 2017 or if Turkey will be removed from the division.

How to grow rugby worldwide?Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

And sorry for the question, if it is stupid: may these economical difficulties be somehow linked with the turn of the screw decided by Erdogan after the attempted golpe? I had heard that he decided an embargo against some western writers, so I wonder if the minister could have similarly decided to give less funds to a sport like rugby, perceived as british more than soccer

And sorry for the question, if it is stupid: may these economical difficulties be somehow linked with the turn of the screw decided by Erdogan after the attempted golpe? I had heard that he decided an embargo against some western writers, so I wonder if the minister could have similarly decided to give less funds to a sport like rugby, perceived as british more than soccer

Deciding an embargo against some western writers is true. Although, federation mistakes are more effected than Erdogan's decision.

I heard that, today's president will not elected in next elections, which are held in 26th November. Most have a chance of TRF Presidency is Murat Pazan. Which he works at the Sports and Youth Ministry. In the other candidate is Hüseyin Mazak. Who is delegate at the Nevsehir's baseball club. Although, I think, Murat Pazan is the new president of the Turkish Rugby Federation.

I'm not an expert of national championships, I was just curious to know how the other top championships work in comparison with the italian "Eccellenza" and I've found the data above after a quick search on line

Usually, as far as I know, the "french" bonus-system doesn't aware the tries-bonus to the losing team: id est, if a team loses but scores three tries more than the opponent (very unlikely but not impossible) it doesn't take the bonus point.

The phrase in the document maybe it's not completely clear ("a bonus point will be awarded for scoring 3 tries more than the opposition OR for a loss by 7 points or less") but I suppose it means that a team may take just one of the two bonuses. Il logical language "or" means "one or the other, not both". In this case it would be sufficient a one point Grand Slam special bonus because a team not realizing the Grand Slam may conquer at maximum 21 pts

Wales' competition is a bit weird. There's a 16-team league which all play each other once. Then, the league splits in two, the table points are reset with the top 8 playing each other again and the bottom 8 playing each other. In each case you reverse the fixture from the 16-team stage, so if Merthyr played Ponty away in the first round they will be at home in the second. As long as you get in the top 8 it doesn't really matter how well you do in the 16-team section). Then the top 4 of the top 8 have semi-final and final playoffs, whilst the bottom 8 are supposed to have a relegation playoff but it's been ring-fenced for a couple of years, so really they've nothing to play for.

I'm not sure what you mean by 8+8 in Germany but maybe this would apply to Wales as well?

Stupid system and I've no doubt it will be reformed sooner rather than later.

Wales' competition is a bit weird. There's a 16-team league which all play each other once. Then, the league splits in two, the table points are reset with the top 8 playing each other again and the bottom 8 playing each other. In each case you reverse the fixture from the 16-team stage, so if Merthyr played Ponty away in the first round they will be at home in the second. As long as you get in the top 8 it doesn't really matter how well you do in the 16-team section). Then the top 4 of the top 8 have semi-final and final playoffs, whilst the bottom 8 are supposed to have a relegation playoff but it's been ring-fenced for a couple of years, so really they've nothing to play for.

I'm not sure what you mean by 8+8 in Germany but maybe this would apply to Wales as well?

Stupid system and I've no doubt it will be reformed sooner rather than later.

8+8 in Germany means. 8 Teams play Bundesliga Nord. 8 Teams play BL Süd.The 2 best of each League play in SF and Final for the Championship. There are no interconference matches during the league.